Interactional linguistics

Jan Lindström
Table of contents

In the dawn of the twenty-first century, interactional linguistics was recognized as a new, internationally emerging direction in the field of linguistics. While most adherents of this direction are heavily influenced by the methodology of conversation analysis (CA), interactional linguists have backgrounds in and orientations to a diversity of traditions, including discourse analysis, (interactional) sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, (discourse) functional linguistics, construction grammar, and grammaticalization theory. It is thus fair to say that interactional linguistics is interdisciplinary within linguistics but also connected to other sciences, in the first place sociology (Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001). The unifying perspective is to describe linguistic structures and meanings as they serve social goals in naturally occurring spoken, in a broad sense, conversational language, viz. ‘talk-in-interaction’. In this perspective, linguistic structures are seen as resulting from the practical needs of (repeated) interaction(s) as well as giving form to (particular) interaction(s), thus providing a trajectory of an on-going interaction for the speakers. From the point of view of pragmatics, research in interactional linguistics contributes to an empirically based understanding of language use and the dependency of linguistic form on social action, and vice versa.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Auer, P.
1996 Prosody in conversation. In Couper-KuhlenE. & M. Selting (eds.) . Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25: 7–36. Google Scholar
Chafe, W. & J. Danielewicz
1987 Properties of spoken and written language. In HorowitzR. & S. J. Samuels (eds.) Comprehending oral and written language: 83–113. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & C. E. Ford
2004 Sound patterns in interaction. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DuBois J.
2003 Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language, vol. 2: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure: 47–87. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. & S. A. Thompson
1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs et al. (eds.) Interaction and grammar: 134–184. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson
2002a The language of turn and sequence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson
2002b Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford (eds.). The language of turn and sequence: 14–38. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & R. Jasperson
1995 A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In P. W. Davis (ed.). Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes: 77–134. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
1981 Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press. Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J.
1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
1996 From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics 6323–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & M. Selting
2005 Syntax and lexis in conversation. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, M. -L.
2001 Syntax in the making: the emergence of syntactic units in Finnish conversation. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
1998 Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure: 155–175. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson
1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60: 703–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J. & J. Local
1989 Doing phonology. Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
Laury, R.
1997 Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A.
1999 Language as social action. Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation,. Diss. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Lindström, J.
2006 Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research in Language and Social Interaction 3981–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P.
2004 On some principles of a dialogical grammar. In K. Aijmer (ed.). Dialogue Analysis VIII. Understanding and misunderstanding in dialogue: 7–23. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 The written language bias in linguistics. Its nature, origins and transformations. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H. & M. Huiskes
2005 Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Studies in interactional linguistics: 141–169. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson
1996 Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R., A. Hakulinen & L. Tainio
2004 Indexing ’no news’ with stylization in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (eds.) Sound patterns in interaction: 299–334. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O.
1981 You know. A discourse functional approach. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assesments. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structures of social action: 57–101. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff & G. Jefferson
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.
1979 The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (ed.). Syntax and semantics 12. Discourse and syntax: 261–288. Academic Press.Google Scholar
1996 Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs (eds.) Interaction and grammar: 52–133. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks
1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53:361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, B. & E. Ochs
(eds.) 1986 Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M.
1996 On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the construction of turn constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6: 357–388. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29: 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. & E. Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2001 Studies in interactional linguistics. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M. -L.
2001 Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, J.
2001 Notes on turn-construction methods in Danish and Turkish conversation. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.)259–286. Studies in interactional linguistics : Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H.
1999 Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Benjamins. Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
1984 Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Ablex. Google Scholar